bill to permit application was submitted at the end of december of last year. they submitted through the review process and the planning commission heard this item on may 20 and voted 5-1-1, with a commissioner absent, to approve the project as proposed. with that, there are probably some questions of what the powers of this board are. i would defer to the expert, the deputy city attorney and the deputy director, but it is my understanding of the discretionary powers of this board are broad. the discretionary powers of the planning commission are derived from powers given to this board. you can consider the impact of development applications on the adjacent property. i think that is important to know so that everybody in the stands with the roles and responsibilities of this board are. also, we're starting all over again.

these to novo hearings will cure a lot of the minor here it -- all of the minor issues, whether the testimony went to 3:00 a.m., whether or not a child care center was or was not completed and the analysis. this hearing will correct all those issues that have been raised. the appellate has really raised two issues about why this board should deny the application that the planning commission has approved. first, it is not code comply because it is within 1,000 feet of a child care center and they are considering that as a use that is one of the prohibited uses under the planning code. i have provided an analysis in our brief about each of the locations that they have referenced and how they are not subject to these limitations. getting into the requirements of section 790.5a, that is the

section that we are looking at. it reference a code section that does not exist. if you look at article 8, which is similar to article 7, as the correct reference, and that is 890.50a. in looking at that, it does not include child care. it child care is separate item. that is not included and the list of prohibited uses. you have to be a school, you have to be a committee center devoted to it -- you have to be a community center devoted to children 18 years or under. the section 304.5 requirement is not really relevant here. that is the master plan which we addressed last meeting. yes, and the use in here would be subject to that, but that

simply means you either meet it or do not meet it. the fact that they do not need it does not mean that it does not apply. i think 304.5 is irrelevant here. the key is to look at the enumerated sections, and the subject application is code compliant. this board has heard many medical dispensary cannabis appeals. i think they're well aware of the difficulties the providers have in finding a suitable location. we have very strict requirements, and these were crafted in 2005. at the time, we developed a map. the permit holder referenced a green map, which is now blue. i will put it on the overhead.

there are very few locations in the city in which you can locate a medical cannabis dispensary. commissioner garcia: could you slide that up some so to see the southwest corner? there we go, thank you. >> there are very few occasions in the city where an mcd can be located. when the controls were crafted, the war including public schools. that is how this map was developed. -- they were including public schools. the war including recreational centers. child care specifically not included. if child care were included, this map would look much different. i cannot say if there would be any blousons or not. it would be substantially reduced. that is really the first part of that argument. then we get the second point, that is not a desirable use. i think we're looking at code

complying, desirable use, is it neighborhood serving? we had discussed that the nearest mcd is on the ocean. this is not a location that is very well served by medical cannabis dispensary. as you see on the map, there's a large market and that is where a lot of the new mcd's go. we don't see a lot of new mcd's locating in other neighborhoods because they are so difficult to find. but we have four, five around ninth and mission. there are few locations. the permit holders found a suitable location, code plant, made the correct application, and the planning commission approved it. in reference to the letter from the police captain, with respect to the appellant, the planning commission it's a lot of letters from the police department. often when the police department is concerned about something,

they will send somebody out. you'll meet the capt. themselves or somebody else from their station. but the police are involved with the planning process. this was not something that was exceptional or extraordinary. it was submitted to the planning commission. i think they had all that information and considered it and felt the project was not only code complying but also suitable for the location. the message about how to operate in such, does the board understands -- i guess the board understands the process. the planning department regulates the underlying land use and then the department of public health up -- the department of public health regulates the suppliers.

the department of public health even regulates the signs, which is normally something planning would do, but they have complete control over the signs. i think there is suitable oversight here, including through the department of public health. i think that addresses the questions i had here. i like to respectfully request that this board of pulled the planning commission's decision to allow this mcd to operate and i am available for questions. vice president goh: i wonder if you could walk me through 790.141, the reference to 790, subsectionf, and how that references a and not b. >> it is simply a typo.

it there is not at section. there has never been a section f. if we look at article 8, article 7 and eight were to fall to run the same time, the late 1980's, and have a different format from the rest of the planning code. it is a chart with references to definitions and back. they have many of the same numbers. it is a different number in each article. in the definition of a medical cannabis dispensary, it references 890.50a. it is a typo, and i am interpreting what that means is a reference to 790.50a, which would be consistent with article 8. vice president goh: are there

any rulings from this board or other body that finds that to be the case? >> no, this issue has not been brought up before. we have something pending, code cleanup language before the board of supervisors. i was not able to confirm this was in there or not, but it is something that now that we are aware of it will include in the code cleanup legislation. vice president goh: you don't know if this appears in the close to clean up -- you are not aware of this appears in the code cleanup? >> the current code, this reference is a section that does not exist, but the code cleanup legislation would correct it. i am not sure if it is in the current legislation or any subsequent legislation. vice president goh: ok.

>> this is a hearing where the board can consider all of these items, but if this is code complying, we have approved other mcd's under these provisions and this is raised as an issue. that it has been brought to our attention, we will address it. vice president goh: okay, thank you. vice president goh: -- commissioner hwang: mr. sanchez, in your reply, this submission, dated november 4, it references planning code section 790.116. you excerpt it here. anyway, right before the conclusion, you reference this

multiple times, about the definition of personal service. do you have whole colt -- the whole code section? >> yeah, sure. this will take a second. to have the overhead, please? the definition, personal service, retail use efinition, l service, retail use which provides services to the individual, including salons, cosmetic services, tattoo parlors, and health spas, or art, dance, exercise, martial arts, and music classes. that is where we felt both of

those centers were both best classified under that section. tha commissioner hwang: okay, thk you. president peterson: as commissioner garcia mentioned, he had to leave the meeting. when it comes time to vote on this item, it commissioner garcia's vote would make a difference in the outcome of the item, the item will be continued to allow his participation in the vote. we are ready to move into public comment. if i could see a show of hands of people interested in speaking on this item?

ok, great. we will ask people to line up on the far wall. and president peterson? president peterson: in light of the number of speakers and the need for a translator, we will have one minute for public comment. >> if you need translation services, if someone is not standing next to you to help you have that, let us know and we will make sure somebody does that. also, i need to make sure everybody understands that public, it is available for people who are not affiliated with any of the parties. so if you are on the board of

directors, for example, of peter the appellant organizations or an owner of -- of the appellant organizations or the owner of one of those appellant organizations or the owner or agent of a permit holder, you are not allowed to speak under public comment. your time to speak would be of the party wants to share their time with you. at first speaker? also, it will help us preparing the minutes if you could provide us with a speaker card. if you don't have one filled out already, we ask you to wait until after you are done speaking to fill it out and give it to the clark. -- the clerk. president peterson: i know we had a tradition of allowing supervisors to testify. >> i don't know if there has been a request or not. supervisor chu, if you would

like to speak? if you don't mind, sir, we will let the supervisor speak first. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for hearing this appeal. i think the appellants brought a lot of points to the fore, but wanted to fundamentally talk about a few things. i think the questions are very relevant with regard to the planning department report. it was fundamentally flawed, as we were referred to. they cited a code that did not exist. they made the comment that it was simply a typo, but the type of existed on page 3, 5, 8, 10, of a 10-page report. the department recognized a section that did not exist and used it as a basis to determine that it was something that was not important. at one of the things i also wanted to bring out was half of the public process was.

the translation was not adequate, did not provide meaningful opportunity for the community to express their opinions. if anything, and to leave you with how important is to recognize this. we have received over 4000 emails, telephone calls, petitions that were signed. individuals were not able to understand the comments made by commissioners or respond to comments that were disparaging, including that they were ignorant and not aware of what the project was. i simply ask that you consider the merits before you, the merits being the planning code section that truly was not referenced to. one of the commissioners talked- about new administrative bulletins to clarify. if you follow the spirit of the law, not only are we talking about the businesses within the district, within 1,000 feet, lincoln high school, edgewood, which is a residential use the

facility located just outside of that 1000-foot area. commissioner hwang: not to interrupt, but what code section are you contending applies? >> if you look at the planning department's report, it is a commission report that was provided for which they actually made the basis. at the consistently referred to on all of those pages that the planning code section 798.50f would explain why the committee and recreational facilities that were cited did not meet the definition of a recreational center. but if you look at that code, it does not exist in the document. there is not administered a bulletin to clarify how that would be applied. not only that, if you just think about what some of these businesses provide, day camps, summer camps, winter camps,

recreational and community use. president peterson: thank you. >> think it. -- thank you. we have a list of the petition. president peterson: next speaker? >> good evening. i have been living in san francisco 25 years. i graduated from ucsf and pharmaceuticals. i have a back problem, too. i had back surgery last year. i'm very passionate about pain management. i have a lot of patients traveling from chico, and manchester to my pharmacy to get medicine.

i live in the sunset district. taraval street is not inappropriate place for this business, for this establishment. if you drive on taraval street in the afternoon, you understand there are too many youth, walking down the street, hanging out. even driving in that neighborhood in the afternoon. i just think culturally and socially this business is not compatible with the neighborhood. thank you very much. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> i am the ceo of traditional family corporation, and i am speaking for many patients in the district. i have been living in the area from 1988, and the 7-11 it is

diagonally across from the mcd site. those places are parking lots where a lot of teenagers gathered. they hang around and fix their cars, and therend and fix their cars, and there are mothers bringing their kids to the laundromat. there is a parking lot. we all understand that parking lots are the places where drug dealings. the mcd, whoever purchases the marijuana and gives the resale of the parking lot, that is going to be the best place for them. so i urge you not to approve this because you will be affecting future generations. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello, my name is mitchell. i played ball all the time at sunset.

there are fights everywhere. i live in sunset. it is the park by vincente, there are all kinds of parks. ithey're fighting for it, gangs, everybody. i cannot go there anymore because there are fights. there are a whole bunch of drug dealers and everything. i just mind my own thing. i just mind my own business, but there are a lot of things going on. thank you, commissioners. president peterson: thank you. ext. speaker, please? >> my name is daniel smith. i'm here to read a letter on behalf of the edgewood center, located just 50 feet outside of the perimeter. we are for educational purposes.

on behalf of the center for children and families located on vincente street, i urge you to consider revoking the permit for medicinal cannabis dispensary at 2139 taraval street at 38 avenue. many schools are situated very close to the proposed site. it serves as a thoroughfare for students on their way to and from students and is also a popular destination for students for lunch. surely a site not in such close proximity could be found as a dispensary. please reconsider issuing the permit for the mcd at the taraval street location. thank you. it president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello, i have been living in sunset my whole life. i have graduated from the public schools and am currently a junior at sf state. i have worked at the beacon

center and with park and wreck, both egms to -- both gems to our district. i live with my mother and two brothers. i love this neighborhood with a great passion. i have come here to ask that you did not discriminate against sunset residents who want to stay in their own districts without having to drive. i find it " cannot allow medicine within a decent destination. not allowing this disparity open because of fear of crime increase is not only false by proven data but gives crack power -- but gives power to the criminals by allowing them to dictate how we function. president peterson: 90. next speaker, please? -- thank you. >> good evening. my name is susan. i conducted out reache.

residents shared literally hundreds of personal stories with me. >> are you a paid representative? >> i am no longer affiliated with that center and i hope that you allow me to continue. as a cancer survivor myself, the stories people shared with me are particularly moving. this letter came to me a bit late. i was not able to get it to you in a timely manner. i like to enter it into the record. dearborn, i am a 61-year-old woman. i am not a recreational pot smoker. i have worked in a professional office environment for 40 years. this is the second time i have had to defend my rights to better health. several years ago i had a sleeping disorder, insomnia, for needed desk, and our steel arthritis -- and osteoarthritis. i also suffered from chronic

stress from working in a fast- paced environment. i received my medical marijuana card in 2009, was seeking medical marijuana. i sleep all night long, my lower back pain is completely gone. i used to think marijuana was addictive and a gateway drug. i now think that used properly as a medicine, it has worked wonders for me. please consider the permit issuance. there are others in my neighborhood cannot get around to other places and you will of thousands of people like me in sunset park side." president peterson: thank you. the next speaker, please? >> good evening. i have lived in san francisco for 60 years. for three years, i have been bringing my birds to the bay area bird hospital directly next door to the proposed center.

the staff and doctors of this hospital have told me they are in favor of this center placed next door to them. i recently lost both of my brothers to cancer, and they suffered terribly. i believe they would have greatly benefited from a medical cannabis center like this in a safe neighborhood like ours. thank you. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am here to speak in favor of the permit. i only want to say two things. the first is there is a very simple argument against every single argument against the permit. you don't like the permit, here is my rebuttal. that is substitute the word

walgreens for medical cannabis dispensary. there are terrible on safe drugs as well. the same at walgreens. people can shop elsewhere. sam at walgreens. that is not an argument. you could use that argument to force every business out of the sunset. the kids are walking by, we don't want them to get their hands on drugs. it said matt walgreens. you do that in a way that the kids to their hands on the drugs. id matt walgreens. you do that in a way that the kids to their hands on the drugs. -- same at walgreens. my second point is about kids. i am sure that most of the people who oppose the dispensary are worried about kids and it is an emotional issue. i am sympathetic to their emotions. i really think they're looking the wrong place. kids get their drugs and their parents' bathrooms, the medicine cabinet. they get their drugs in school from friends. they get their drugs in the park. they will go through all of the hassle of getting a permit to go

to dispensary. it is the real danger is elsewhere. i would urge people worried about kids to find something to do to get the drugs out of the high school. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? go ahead. >> my name is nancy. i urge you to revoke this permit. i have lived in the park side district 30 years and my community matters to make. i worked for years with my neighbors to rebuild the park side elementary school. i worked with park side library and to locate the city's first ada- accessible playground at 28th avenue. i do not have any children. why have i spent so much of my life advocating for many of these children, for other people's families? it is because i care about society and how about growing

the next generation. i ask that you respect what we in the park side are doing to keep families in san francisco. we need your support today to allow park side district to offer people a safe place to call home. i like to also enter into evidence from the bay area guardian today a full-page ad advertising free delivery. this is critical to meet the needs of those individuals who need medical cannabis. i support medical cannabis. i do not think my neighborhood has to have an endangering institution when you can get it free. here is the ad. thank you. i don't even know these people, but i think that is right. >> if we could have the overhead, please? president peterson: thank